From: "Nigel Mitchell" <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Tongues - until Chris leaves again
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 19:51:36 +0800

I wrote:
>>Chris,
>>Why do you persist in misrepresenting the Bible?

Christian Graus wrote in message <>...
>I have been ignoring the fact that you continue to do so based on past
>exchanges, but I continue to reject your authority over that of the
>Bible, and to take offence that you claim I misrepresent the Bible
>because I don't agree with your highly fascinating views on what it
>says, which do not include the opinion that it can be trusted.


Dear Chris,
you seem blissfully unaware that the stronget evidence supporting your
argument is your ability to construct sentences like the one above.

>>Everything below has been pointed out to you before. I can't help
>>wondering if it is arrogance or dishonesty that makes you come
>>back to the newsgroup to say the same things over and over again,
>>when you know that they are so unconvincing.

>It is the fact that your arguments are tired and empty and do not
>negate the scriptures you cannot explain convincingly, or the power of
>God that you thumb your nose to.


I know the power of God in my life. I see the power of God in the lives of
people around me. I have never "thumbed my nose" at the power of God. I am
merely a Christian who has a different opinion to you about the Bible.


>>Mark 16 is considered by almost every Biblical scholar to be a
>>late addition to the Gospel, by a different author. That does not
>>make it uncanonical, but it should alert us to the fact that it
>>was probably put there by someone pushing a particular sectional
>>view of Christianity.
>
>Actually, as you reject the inspiration of all the Bible, I'm
>surprised you bother to make this argument.


Chris, I sometimes wonder if you ever read my posts. I do believe that God
inspired the Bible. I have said so repeatedly whenever the subject has come
up. You can check this if you like in my recent discussions with "tigger"
and "able".

>>Regardless of the above, Mark 16 promises many things. All of
>>them are seen in the lives of some Christians. None of them is
>>seen in the life of every Christian.
>
>I agree that alone one could choose to form this view, but it ignores
>the fact that if these signs follow believers, then where-ever there
>is one believer, the signs need to follow.


Yes, but not all of them, and not in every believer.
Some Christians are used by God to perform miracles of healing.
Some Christians  are protected by God in life- treatening situations.
Some Christians prophesy.
Some Christians  preach.
Some Christians speeak in tongues.

>>Acts 2, 10 and 19 show that speaking in tongues is one of the
>>things that Christians do in the power of the Spirit. Christians
>
>That is right, it is one of the many gifts, and Acts 2, 10 and 19 show
>it is the one that is also 'the manifestation of the Spirit'


It is _a_ manifestation of the Spirit, according to the chapters referred to
above.

>>also heal, preach, prophesy, and occasionally even perform
>>spectacular miracles in the power of the Spirit. None of these
>>things is seen in the life of every Christian.
>
>Actually God heals people, Christians just ask Him to.  It is easy to
>show from the Bible that all Christians can pray to be healed with
>equal right to expect an answer, that preaching is not a 'gift of the
>Spirit' in the sense I am speaking.  Use the Bible to define
>'Christian' instead of your customers, you may be surprised.


If you could point to a single verse that sais "All Christians speak in
tongues", we would not be having this discussion.
In fact, if you could point to a single verse which defined "Christian", we
would not be having this discussion.

In the New testament, after Pentecost, some of the Christians spoke in
tongues. That is what the Bible says. It is also what happens in every
Church around the world today.

>>Acts 8 does not mention tongues. It mentions the coming of the
>>Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (which in most
>>Churches today continues through the sacrament of Confirmation).
>
>Except that when people get confirmed as I was, nothing happens that
>would conform to the pattern Paul spoke of as 'demonstration of the
>Spirit and power', nor is anything visible as obviously impressed
>Simon the Sorcerer.  It is a counterfeit, not a continuation.


I wish you could meet the 8 people, ranging from ages 16 to  60, who I am
currently preparing for Confirmation on Easter morning. Only one is a
'cradle Anglican'. Two are Japanese people who had no knowledge of
Christtianity at all before recently emigrating to Australia. One is a
convert from Islam. The others are adults who have come to faith in God
through the ministry of this Church. I can see the Holy Spirit already
working in the lives of these people, and I know that the Spirit will be
strengthened and continue to grow after Confirmation.

If you say this is "counterfeit", then I can only say, from what my own eyes
have seen, that you do not know what you are talking about.

>>It mentions the Baptism of the Samaritans, and the Ethiopian
>>Eunuch, but it does not say that any of them spoke in tongues.
>
>It DOES say that they were unsaved, baptised believers.  You are yet
>to address how this can be.  Don't feel bad, no-one else has either.


This has been addressed many times, by me and others. You just don't like
the answer, because it does not fit your pet theory. In the Bible, as in the
Church today, the Spirit is manifested in different ways in different
people, and in different communities. The Samaritans may have been Baptised
using  an invalid formula, as the text of Acts 8 implies, or there may even
have been doubt about wheter they were Baptised at all.

>>In 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 Paul makes a sustained argument
>>against those who were abusing Tongues and other gifts of the
>>spirit by using them inappropriately. He teaches that these
>>things are all a part of the common faith and worship of the
>>Church, and that they are all less important than love.
>
>Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.  The common faith is motivated by love,
>above all else, and one of the common things about it is that ACSIT.


The last clause of the above sentence is your opinion. It is not supported
by anything Paul wrote, and in fact, as I mentioned in my previous post,
directly contradicts the weight of Paul's argument.

>>You contradict Paul when you try and say that All Christians
>>speak in tongues. Stiving to all have Love is far more important.
>>Do you think all Christians have Love?
>
>Yes, but it is not a dichotomy.  Which is more important, to have
>petrol in your car or wheels on it ? The Corinthians had the petrol,
>but without wheels were going no-where.  If you have love but not
>tongues, you don't have the Spirit and you can only roll downhill.


To continue your analogy, but more in keeping with 1 Corinthians 12-14:
Love is the Petrol.
Tongues is the overdrive gear.

You cannot get by without Petrol.
It is good to have an overdrive gear, but not essential.

>It's not a dichotomy, Paul also said tongues are a sign to unbelievers
>in the church and said 'forbid not tongues.'  If the church was better
>off without them the two questions are why did Paul not just forbid
>them and why would God give a gift you seem to believe was only
>harmful ?


Neither Paul nor I ever said that the Church is better off without tongues.
Tongues are part of the work of the Holy Spirit, and they are manifest in
most, if not all, Christian communities. But, as Paul argues so convincingly
in 1 Corinthians 12, the gifts of the Spirit are not given to every person
in the same measure. I have never said that tongues are harmful. How could a
gift of the Holy Spiri be hrmul? I have never known a Christian community in
which they were totally absent.

Tongues are only 'harmful' when the people to whom this gift is given are
misguided and begin to think that anyone who does not have the same gift is
not a Christian. That is not the tongues being harmful. It s the good gift
being misused. Paul spoke againstt such misusee of the Gifts of the Holy
Spirit in 1 Corinthian 12-4.

>>You can quote selectively from different versions of the Bible,
>>as you have done above, to make Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 14
>>sound as though they supported ACSIT. You can even ask with mock
>>incredulity "do all Christians have faith???", as though that
>>supported your argument. But you will not win this argument. You
>>are arguing against the Bible and the common experience of most
>>of the Christians who have ever lived.
>
>I am arguing against most religious folks to be sure.  It is a good
>tactic to make fun of a sound argument before it is posed, but as 1
>Cor 12 lists 9 gifts, if you want one to be optional then all must be,
>faith included.  Are the fruits also a pick and choose affair ?
>Smorgasbord Christianity ?


You are arguing against most Christians.

Faith is not optional.
Love is not optional.

Tongues are not optional either. They are given to some Christians, as the
Spirit wills and as the Church needs. That is what Paul says in 1
Corinthians 12-14.

>>Some Christians speak in tongues.
>
>Keep saying it, you will certainly fool someone, but in the end you
>will pay for it.  Blind guides, and all that.


We have been sparring on this newsgroup for nearly 5 years now, Chris. In
that time, have you convinced a single person that All Christians Speak in
Tongues?

>I have a Gospel to protect, and you have an income.

I love your logic, Chris.
Because I have academic qualifications, ordination in a Christian community,
and full time employment in the ministry of a large city Church, therefore
you are "protecting the Gospel" and I am "protecting my income".

>It is more likely
>to occur in a friendly way if we just don't speak to each other.


Well, stop saying things we all know to be false, and I will happily ignore
your posts.

Cheers

N+